Universal Relativity? Time Same for Everyone?

[Nicholas Kang]

I just think of this question a few minutes ago. I was wondering since we move at different speed everyday, our time will slow down as speed increase. Then, if everyone is moving at a different speed, this mean everyone`s time should be different and time should be a complicating issue. I mean my time today is different from my clock. Because my clock move rarely but not I. So, I solve a mystery in science. (I think so) To determine how long you will live, despite natural and man-made disaster, our life expectancy is directly proportional to our everyday moving speed and inversely proportional to the running time. The faster you move, the slower the time, the longer you live. Is it true?

[ajb]

The faster you move, the slower the time, the longer you live. Is it true?

As measured by who?

[Nicholas Kang]

Who? As measured by light. I suppose this is what I read in Einstein`s Theory of Relativity. Speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer and the motion of the light itself. But, space is something different. So, my perfect answer is measured by light and relative to anything and everything in space.

[ajb]

Who? As measured by light.

This does not make sense to me. In special relativity we usually think of an observer as really just some choice of inertial reference frame. Light cannot be used to define a particular reference frame as there is no inertial frame for which light can be considered at rest.

 

Anyway, it is true that, lets say as measured by an observer on Earth the clock in a speeding rocket runs slower. This includes the body clock of the astronaut. However as far as the astronaut is concerned he sees no change in the rate of his clock. Thus, all other things being equal, the astronaut's life expectancy has not changed as he measures it. Thus he does not, as far as he is concerned extend his life.

 

From the perspective of an observer on the Earth the astronaut does live longer, but at the cost of a slower pace of life!

 

I can recommend a good book that will help you with this.

Edited June 1, 2014 by ajb

[Nicholas Kang]

You mean the astronaut himself doesn`t realise he is getting older while the observer on Earth observe him getting older. There is no absolute reference frame in physics, am I true? What about space? Don`t forget that these all happens in space. Is space an absolute reference frame? If not, why?

[swansont]

If you move at 50 mph (80 kph) relative to something, your clock will run slow about a nanosecond a week relative to that something. You will not live appreciably longer at speeds we can easily attain.

[Nicholas Kang]

In daily life, we will move at a certain speed to almost everything, so things can be complicated.

[ajb]

You mean the astronaut himself doesn`t realise he is getting older while the observer on Earth observe him getting older.

The astronaut ages just the same as he would on Earth as far as he is concerned. That is, by any physical experiment he can perform on his rocket time ticks away at just the same rate it always did.

 

There is no absolute reference frame in physics, am I true?

Correct, any local frame you set up is as valid as any other.

 

What about space? Don`t forget that these all happens in space. Is space an absolute reference frame? If not, why?

Space is not a reference frame.

 

By a reference frame we usually mean a local coordinate system on space-time, that is some way of measuring lengths and durations locally. (In special relativity we can do this globally with special coordinates; the inertial ones)

In daily life, we will move at a certain speed to almost everything, so things can be complicated.

Right, so you have to be careful with what any measurements are with respect to. That is what coordinates are you using?

[swansont]

In daily life, we will move at a certain speed to almost everything, so things can be complicated.

 

But also negligible, which simplifies things greatly.

[Nicholas Kang]

Yeah, I think so. So, reference frame is contained in space or space is contained in reference frame?

[ajb]

So, reference frame is contained in space or space is contained in reference frame?

A reference frame is a choice of coordinates, usually just on a local patch of space-time. You put the coordinates i.e. pick a frame remembering that the space-time exists* independently of this choice.

 

*Lets not get drawn into a discussion of real and exists here, I just mean it exists as a well-defined mathematical entity.

[Nicholas Kang]

Physics is not pure Maths. You shouldn`t just neglect this statement. If you treat this case as pure Maths, then Physics shall has gone. i hope that we can still discuss this case and try to visualize it, not just stay away from it. You can`t avoid Maths in Physics but that doesn`t mean Physics is Maths. No matter how it exists, it must be visualized. Remember how Hinton describe hyperspace? He was successful in visualizing hyperspace by hypercube. If you just think of Maths, Maths and Maths, Physics will have ended long ago. I won`t surrender in this context. I won`t just call-it-quit just because it is Maths in Physics. If possible, please help me to visualize your statement. Thanks ajb.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[ajb]

If you treat this case as pure Maths, then Physics shall has gone.

Physics is ultimately about creating and testing mathematical models of nature. Because of this it is not easy to separate "pure maths" from "pure physics". We employ mathematical ideas and concepts in physics all the time. Really trying to decide if space-time exists or not is not really physics.

 

No matter how it exists, it must be visualized.

I don't see that that is necessarily true of all physics concepts. The main thing is that we know how to work with them mathematically.

 

If possible, please help me to visualize your statement.

Just think of the Earth, and atlas and a map.

 

The surface of the Earth is the real thing we wish to describe. So we "cut it into little pieces", that is we draw maps and place coordinates on these maps giving us charts. That is we place a grid on the map so we can assign to all the points on the map, which correspond to real locations on the Earth, two numbers. These two numbers are the coordinates. A minimal collection of all maps that cover all the locations on the Earth is an atlas.

 

This local coordinatisation of the Earths surface is not unique, we have many different maps and different atlases, but anyone of these is just as good as another.

 

Mathematically you have to tidy this all up, but this is the basic idea of a manifold which is fundamental in physics. (Also by map I just really mean a local neighborhood of a point and not a mathematical mapping before anyone pulls me on that!)

Edited June 1, 2014 by ajb

[Nicholas Kang]

The Earth, the map and the atlas and you and your statement and me and my reply are all on the same thing-Space.

[swansont]

Physics is not pure Maths.

 

No, it's maths that have been shown to work in the real world. But a coordinate system is only part of the maths; it's the framework. You haven't done anything with it.

[Nicholas Kang]

Framework is in Maths? or Maths is in Framework?

 

My answer: Simple, Clear and Logic(If you think so?)

 

Framework, Maths, coordinate system, Mr. swantson`s suggestion and my reply are all in the same thing-Space.

[ajb]

Framework is in Maths? or Maths is in Framework?

The framework of physics is mathematics.

 

 

Framework, Maths, coordinate system, Mr. swantson`s suggestion and my reply are all in the same thing-Space.

That would be Dr. Swantson to you! ;-)

 

You should be thinking of space-time not just space...

 

Anyway, mathematics is an abstract thing so I don't see that it has to be in space-time, but then we are and mathematics is "done" in our brains and on paper. But anyway, what is your point here?

[Nicholas Kang]

My point of view is a bit different. You see, all of the universe and what we talk about now is in space. There must be something not yet been discovered about space. Since you are a Physics Expert, I think you should consider this idea. My idea had been clearly stated in the topic:

The Origin of The Universe From the Big Bang? The Space Reveals Everything? Yet, I am scolded for not reading and preparing well before proposing my idea. The most important point of all is: Space is constant. (That is my idea)

Thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Nicholas Kang

[ajb]

To be honest I have lots of work of my own to do instead of trying to make any sense out of speculations on this forum. Anyway, given what you have said here and in other posts, including that your are 15, my suggestion is that you get up to speed with established physics first.

 

In part you can do that here by asking questions as you have done so. But that will not be enough.

 

Anyway, we should do are best to keep on topic.

 

It seems to me that you are in part suggesting that physicists are part of the Universe therefore anything they can think of even very abstractly is part of the Universe. I can't say I completely disagree, but I am not sure what the outcome of this is.

[Nicholas Kang]

Ok, I love to explore the edge of Physics. That is my interest. You can not reply my post anyway if you don`t like. I won`t be angry.